which all Protestants are involved as aiding and abetting a needless and schismatical project."*

To this I reply, that to suppose us to take away the obligation of conforming in our own persons to the will of Christ is to suppose us no longer Christians. For to deny the obligation of obedience is at once to deny his authority, which is equivalent to a formal renunciation of Christianity. But if he means that we are obliged to demand in others a perfect compliance with his will, as a term of communion, he takes away the possibility of toleration; for we can be said to tolerate nothing but what we disapprove, and we can assign no other reason for our disapprobation besides its apparent repugnance to the mind of Christ. His argument, therefore, is entirely nugatory. It is acknowledged that the lawfulness of admitting a Roman Catholic to our communion, supposing him to be a real Christian, is a necessary inference from our principles; but to conclude from thence that we are obliged to adhere to his is demonstrably false and sophistical; nor is there the least pretence for asserting that the "ground in both cases is the same." Of two actions which involve consequences infinitely different, it is impossible the ground should be the same. To receive a pious Roman Catholic to our communion implies nothing more than an acknowledgment of his being a member of Christ, which is true by the supposition: to commune with him in the rites peculiar to the Romish church is to be guilty of gross idolatry and superstition, which, however pardonable it may be in him, whose conscience is uninformed, in me, who have no such plea, would be damnable. Luther was necessitated to depart from the external communion of the Church of Rome, if he would not partake in her corruptions, because her communion formed a principal part of those cor ruptions. Besides, since that church maintains the infallibility of all her decisions, and whoever ventures to promulgate a doubt respecting a tittle of her doctrine, is ipso facto excommunicated till he recants, when the light of truth revealed to Luther her enormities, it was not left to his option to continue in her society or not, unless he would involve himself in the guilt of most horrid prevarication. He never pretended to depart from the Romish church absolutely, and in every thing, but in those particulars only in which she had corrupted the doctrine of the gospel and adulterated the worship of God; and, however highly he might estimate the advantages of unity, he could not purchase them at the expense of a good conscience, nor dare, by assenting to error, or concurring in superstition and idolatry, "to do evil that good might come." But if a Catholic of whose piety he entertained no doubt had offered himself for communion with him, without recanting popery on the one hand, or proposing to innovate in the worship of God on the other, on such a supposition, if Luther had refused to receive him, his conduct might have been justly censured. Now, I would put it to the conscience of any impartial person, to determine whether Luther would have had precisely the same reasons for declining this act of toleration as for refusing his approbation of indulgences, or his adoration of the * Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 55.

VOL. I.-F f

mass. In exercising the forbearance in question, he would have merely attested the piety of the communicant; in the other case, he would have directly countenanced and supported what he esteemed impiety and idolatry. With him who is prepared to assert that each of these methods of proceeding are equally criminal, it is in vain to dispute; but if they are not, the assertion that the ground in both cases is the same is undeniably false.

Having detected the palpable sophistry by which my opponent would evince the inconsistency of our principles with the cause of Protestantism and of dissent, it remains only for me to remind him of the facility with which the argument may be retorted, and of the striking resemblance between the system of strict communion and that which is maintained by the churches of England and of Rome.

1. The Romish church, it is well known, pretends to an absolute infallibility; not, however, in such a sense as implies an authority to introduce new doctrine, but merely in the proposal of apostolic traditions and in the interpretation of Scripture. While she admits the Scripture to be the original rule of faith, she requires, under pain of excommunication, that the sense she puts on its words should be received with the same submission with the inspired volume. In what respects, let me ask, is the conduct of the strict Baptists different? A controversy arises on the extent of a positive rite, whether it should be confined to adults, or be communicated to infants. Both parties appeal to the Scripture, which the Baptist interprets (in my humble opinion) correctly, in such a manner as to restrict it to believers; the Pedobaptist, with equal sincerity, supposes it to include infants. While the former in his own practice confines it to the description of persons to whom he judges it to belong, he acts with unexceptionable propriety; but wnen, not satisfied with this, he insists upon forcing his interpretation on the conscience of his brother, and treats him precisely in the same manner as though he avowedly contradicted Christ and his apostles, what is this but an assumption of infallibility? All that infallibility which the Church of Rome pretends to is the right of placing her interpretation of Scripture on a level with the word of God: she professes to promulgate no new revelation, but solely to render her sense of it imperative and binding: and if we presume to treat our fellow-christians, merely because they differ from us in their construction of a positive precept, as unworthy of being recognised as Christ's disciples (the very words of this writer), and disqualified for the communion of saints,-if we allow them "faith," while we deny them "obedience," and affirm them not to revere Christ's authority, submit to his ordinances, or obey the laws of his house," we defy all the powers of discrimination to ascertain the difference of the two cases, or to assign a reason why we must ascribe the claim of infallibility to one, and not to the other.

On another occasion, Mr. Kinghorn observes,* that the strict Baptists show they understand the distinction between judging for others and acting on their own responsibility. But in imposing their own sense

* Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 67.

of Scripture on their brethren, and affirming that on account of their differing from them, they do not "revere the authority of Christ," is either judging for others, in every possible sense of the words, or the writer has made an impossible supposition. He adds, they allow that the Pedobaptists, on their own principles, do right in forming themselves into churches, and in commemorating the death of their Lord. And must they not do equally right, on their own principles, in baptizing infants, unless he will assert that the propriety of baptizing infants is not their principle? If judging for others is supposed to involve a claim of infallibility, and on that account, and that alone, to be shunned, to attempt to vindicate the practice of our opponents from that imputation will baffle the acutest intellect.

2. We have already observed the coincidence of our opponent's system with the doctrine of the opus operatum, or the intrinsic and mechanical efficacy of religious rites, independent of the intention and disposition of the worshipper. The Roman Catholic attaches such importance to the rite of baptism, as to believe that when duly administered it is necessarily accompanied with the pardon of sin, and regenerating grace. The strict Baptist maintains that its absence, where all other religious qualifications are possessed in the highest perfection which human nature admits, deprives the party of "the privileges of faith,"* and renders him an alien from the Christian church.

Both the Church of Rome and the Church of England have devised terms of communion of their own, and rendered it necessary for the members to comply with innumerable things besides those which Christ has enjoined as requisite to salvation. The lawfulness and propriety of doing so is the palmarium argumentum, the main pillar and support of strict communion. Let this principle once be abandoned, and the present controversy is at an end, unless our opponents choose to assume new ground, by affirming the necessary connexion between baptism, as they administer it, and the attainment of eternal life; and that they should not perceive the absolute necessity of proceeding so far, in order to be consistent, seems to approach to a judicial infatuation. 3. The adherents to the papal power claim to themselves the exclusive appellation of the church: the arrogance of which pretension is faithfully copied by the advocates of strict communion. The former however, by confining salvation within her own pale, avoid the absurdity into which the latter fall, who, while they affirm the great body of the faithful are not entitled to that appellation, are obliged to distin· guish between the mystical body of Christ and his church, which the Scriptures expressly affirm to be one and the same.

* Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 30.

Ff2

CHAPTER VI.

The Propriety of Appealing in this Controversy to the peculiar Prin ciples of the Pedobaptists-briefly examined and discussed.

It is due, in my apprehension, to the majesty of truth, that she should De defended only by truth, and that we should on all occasions abstain from attempting to increase her partisans by corrupt suffrages. Such are the suffrages she may accidentally gain by the influence of error. As she scorns to employ the aid of violence, which is foreign to her nature, so much less will she condescend to owe any portion of her ascendency to falsehood, which it is her eternal prerogative to confound and to destroy. He who wishes to enlighten the human mind will disdain to appeal to its prejudices, and will rather hazard the rejection of his opinions, than press them as a necessary corollary from misconceptions and mistakes. If the decision of controverted questions is to be subjected to vote, and a superiority of numbers is to pronounce a verdict, the means by which they are procured is a matter of indifference: he who is most successful in enlisting popular humours and prejudices on his side will infallibly secure the victory. To all legitimate argument, however, it is essential for the parties concerned to reason on principles admitted by both; to take their stand upon common ground, and to adopt no medium of proof of the truth of which he who suggests it is not satisfied.

How far Mr. Kinghorn's management of the controversy corresponds with these just requisitions the impartial reader will be at no loss to determine. In his zeal to increase the number of his partisans, he makes frequent and urgent appeals to the Pedobaptists, with whom the point at issue can rarely if ever become a practical question, and who are therefore little interested in its decision. As they admit without hesitation the validity of our baptism, the question whether the right administration of that ordinance be an essential requisite to communion, has no immediate relation to the economy of their churches: it interests them only in the case of those individuals who may be desirous of communing with Baptist societies. As far as it concerns the necessity of that particular rite by which we are characterized, it is a controversy in which we are the only parties; and, however much we venerate the judgment of the religious public, we cannot forget that their motives to a rigorous examination of the question bear no proportion to ours. To them it is a theoretical inquiry, to us a practical one of the most serious moment. If in appealing to them, however he had constructed his reasoning on principles common to Baptists and Pedobaptists, there had been no room for complaint. But instead of his, he enumerates and marshals with such anxiety all the appen

dages of infant baptism, all it assumes and all it infers, as so many irrefragable arguments for his hypothesis, that were we to judge of his sentiments from these passages alone, we should suppose him as tremblingly alive to the consistency of Pedobaptists, as Eli to the preservation of the ark. He adjures them, by every thing which they deem sacred in their system, not to forsake him in the conflict, reminding them that if they do so they must abandon a multitude of positions which they have been accustomed to maintain against the Baptists (that is, against himself), and be compelled to relinquish the field. He therefore exhorts them to be faithful unto death in the defence of error, and to take care that no arts, blandishments, or artifices seduce them to concessions which would embarrass them in their warfare, and render the cause of infant baptism less tenable. Thus he reminds them that by admitting the principle for which we contend, they must relinquish their plea for baptizing infants, on the ground of its " giving the seed of believers a partial membership, which is recognised and completed when they profess their faith in maturer years. Thus one leading popular representation of its utility is given up." This infant membership, however, he elsewhere exclaims against, as the very precursor of antichrist, the inlet to almost every abomination; and this popular representation he considers as a most dangerous fiction.* He tells them, that were he a Pedobaptist, and disposed to adopt my theory, he should be afraid of being pressed with the question, Of what use is infant baptism?† It is unnecessary to remind the reader that in the opinion of Mr. Kinghorn it is of none whatever, but a most pernicious abuse of a Christian ordinance. But what is more lamentable still, he warns them that if "they enter into the spirit of our representation, they will be in danger of neglecting it altogether, and consequently either abandon the whole institution, or be induced by the examination of Scripture to become Baptists;" that they will "be guilty of a complete deviation from the principles of their predecessors; that they must find new arguments for their infant baptism; and that, without attempting to divine what they may be, their cause will be materially injured by the acknowledgment of the necessity of adopting new modes of defence." All this appears very strange from the pen of a zealous Baptist, who contemplates every one of the doctrines which he appeals to with unqualified abhorrence, and who must be aware that just in proportion to the degree of their repugnance to the practice of mixed communion is the presumptive evidence in its favour. To attempt the recommendation of his theory by insisting on the impossibility of reconciling it with what is in his opinion a system of delusion, indicates something nearly resembling the unrestrained impetuosity of a mind so intent upon the end as to be indifferent about the means, and savours more of the art and sophistry of a pleader than of the simplicity which characterizes a sober inquirer after truth. My knowledge of the author forbids the slightest suspicion of any deliberate intention to mislead; but in my humble apprehension he has been betrayed by the warmth of debate and the intemperate sallies of his zeal, into the use, to adopt the mildest

* Baptism & Term of Communion, p. 17.

+ Ibid. p. 22